Title: Pacita Habana, et. al. vs. Felicidad Robles et. al., G.R. No.

al., G.R. No. 131522, July 19, 1999

Doctrine to Remember

Facts
 Petitioners are authors and copyright owners of duly issued certificates of copyright registration covering their published
works, produced through their combined resources and efforts, entitled COLLEGE ENGLISH FOR TODAY (CET for
brevity), Books 1 and 2, and WORKBOOK FOR COLLEGE FRESHMAN ENGLISH, Series 1.
 Respondent Felicidad Robles and Goodwill Trading Co., Inc. are the author/publisher and distributor/seller of another
published work entitled "DEVELOPING ENGLISH PROFICIENCY" (DEP for brevity), Books 1 and 2 (1985 edition) which
book was covered by copyrights issued to them.
 In the course of revising their published works, petitioners scouted and looked around various bookstores to check on other
textbooks dealing with the same subject matter. By chance they came upon the book of respondent Robles and upon
perusal of said book they were surprised to see that the book was strikingly similar to the contents, scheme of presentation,
illustrations and illustrative examples in their own book, CET.
 Petitioners then made demands for damages against respondents and also demanded that they cease and desist from
further selling and distributing to the general public the infringed copies of respondent Robles' works. However, respondents
ignored the demands, hence, on July 7, 1988; petitioners filed with the Regional Trial Court, Makati, a complaint for
"Infringement and/or unfair competition with damages" against private respondents.
 After the trial on the merits, on April 23, 1993, the trial court dismissed the complaint.
 On appeal, the Court of Appeals rendered judgment in favor of respondents Robles and Goodwill Trading Co., Inc. holding
that similarity of the allegedly infringed work to the author's or proprietor's copyrighted work does not of itself establish
copyright infringement, especially if the similarity results from the fact that both works deal with the same subject or have the
same common source, as in this case.
 Hence, this petition.

Issues Articles/Law Involved

Rulings
I. The complaint for copyright infringement was filed at the time that Presidential Decree No. 49 was in force.

Sec. 177. Copy or Economic rights. — Subject to the provisions of chapter VIII, copyright or economic rights shall consist of the
exclusive right to carry out, authorize or prevent the following acts: Reproduction of the work or substantial portion of the work.

The law also provided for the limitations on copyright, thus: Sec. 184.1 Limitations on copyright. — Notwithstanding the
provisions of Chapter V, the following acts shall not constitute infringement of copyright: (a) the recitation or performance of a
work, once it has been lawfully made accessible to the public, if done privately and free of charge or if made strictly for a
charitable or religious institution or society; [Sec. 10(1), P.D. No. 49]

A perusal of the records yields several pages of the book DEP that are similar if not identical with the text of CET.

On page 404 of petitioners' Book 1 of College English for Today, the authors wrote: Items in dates and addresses:

He died on Monday, April 15, 1975.

Miss Reyes lives in 214 Taft Avenue,

Manila 22

On page 73 of respondents Book 1 Developing English Today, they wrote:

He died on Monday, April 25, 1975.

Miss Reyes address is 214 Taft Avenue Manila 23

On Page 250 of CET, there is this example on parallelism or repetition of sentence structures, thus:

The proposition is peace. Not peace through the medium of war; not peace to be hunted through the

1
 labyrinth of intricate and endless negotiations; not peace to arise out of universal discord, fomented from
principle, in all parts of the empire; not peace to depend on the juridical determination of perplexing
questions, or the precise marking of the boundary of a complex government. It is simple peace; sought in its
natural course, and in its ordinary haunts. It is peace sought in the spirit of peace, and laid in principles
purely pacific.

— Edmund Burke, "Speech on Criticism." 24

On page 100 of the book DEP 25, also in the topic of parallel structure and repetition, the same example is found in toto. The only
difference is that petitioners acknowledged the author Edmund Burke, and respondents did not. In several other pages 26 the
treatment and manner of presentation of the topics of DEP are similar if not a rehash of that contained in CET.

We believe that respondent Robles' act of lifting from the book of petitioners substantial portions of discussions and examples,
and her failure to acknowledge the same in her book is an infringement of petitioners' copyrights.

When is there a substantial reproduction of a book? It does not necessarily require that the entire copyrighted work, or even a
large portion of it, be copied. If so much is taken that the value of the original work is substantially diminished, there is an
infringement of copyright and to an injurious extent, the work is appropriated. 

In determining the question of infringement, the amount of matter copied from the copyrighted work is an important
consideration. To constitute infringement, it is not necessary that the whole or even a large portion of the work shall have been
copied. If so much is taken that the value of the original is sensibly diminished, or the labors of the original author are
substantially and to an injurious extent appropriated by another, that is sufficient in point of law to constitute piracy. 

The essence of intellectual piracy should be essayed in conceptual terms in order to underscore its gravity by an appropriate
understanding thereof. Infringement of a copyright is a trespass on a private domain owned and occupied by the owner of the
copyright, and, therefore, protected by law, and infringement of copyright, or piracy, which is a synonymous term in this
connection, consists in the doing by any person, without the consent of the owner of the copyright, of anything the sole right to do
which is conferred by statute on the owner of the copyright. 

A copy of a piracy is an infringement of the original, and it is no defense that the pirate, in such cases, did not know whether or
not he was infringing any copyright; he at least knew that what he was copying was not his, and he copied at his peril. 

The next question to resolve is to what extent can copying be injurious to the author of the book being copied. Is it enough that
there are similarities in some sections of the books or large segments of the books are the same?

In the case at bar, there is no question that petitioners presented several pages of the books CET and DEP that more or less had
the same contents. It may be correct that the books being grammar books may contain materials similar as to some technical
contents with other grammar books, such as the segment about the "Author Card". However, the numerous pages that the
petitioners presented showing similarity in the style and the manner the books were presented and the identical examples can
not pass as similarities merely because of technical consideration.

The respondents claim that their similarity in style can be attributed to the fact that both of them were exposed to the APCAS
syllabus and their respective academic experience, teaching approach and methodology are almost identical because they were
of the same background.

However, we believe that even if petitioners and respondent Robles were of the same background in terms of teaching
experience and orientation, it is not an excuse for them to be identical even in examples contained in their books. The similarities
in examples and material contents are so obviously present in this case. How can similar/identical examples not be considered
as a mark of copying?

In cases of infringement, copying alone is not what is prohibited. The copying must produce an "injurious effect". Here, the injury
consists in that respondent Robles lifted from petitioners' book materials that were the result of the latter's research work and
compilation and misrepresented them as her own. She circulated the book DEP for commercial use did not acknowledged
petitioners as her source.

Hence, there is a clear case of appropriation of copyrighted work for her benefit that respondent Robles committed. Petitioners'
work as authors is the product of their long and assiduous research and for another to represent it as her own is injury enough. In
copyrighting books the purpose is to give protection to the intellectual product of an author. This is precisely what the law on
copyright protected, under Section 184.1 (b). Quotations from a published work if they are compatible with fair use and only to
the extent justified by the purpose, including quotations from newspaper articles and periodicals in the form of press summaries
are allowed provided that the source and the name of the author, if appearing on the work, are mentioned.

In the case at bar, the least that respondent Robles could have done was to acknowledge petitioners Habana  et. al. as the

2
source of the portions of DEP. The final product of an author's toil is her book. To allow another to copy the book without
appropriate acknowledgment is injury enough.